Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship

Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-nfp
Lists: gentoo-nfp: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
To: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
From: Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>
Subject: Re: Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting.
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:50:41 +0000
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 19:15 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Team,
> 1. We are required to advise Foundation members of meetings, in advance 
> and it seems, written notice is required. Its my view that an opt in 
> mailing list like gentoo-nfp is not adequate. Many members don't 
> subscribe and its also used for public debate, which many members are 
> not interested in.
> I don't think snail mail is in keeping with our image either.
> It follows that we need something like gentoo-foundation-announce which 
> members are automaticly subscribed to or we use a list of members email 
> addresses to circulate notices. The difference is one of implementation 
> detail.

I like the idea of gentoo-foundation-announce@.  The very fact that I am
going to get some number of bounces from gentoo-nfp for nonexistent
addresses shows that gentoo-nfp (as it stands) is not adequate.

> We probably need to agree our bylaws before we can implement such a 
> list, as the bylaws define the qualifications for membership.
> 2. IRC voting and Proxies.
> I'm not sure we will ever use IRC for a vote. It could be managed by 
> voicing the members on the list in 1) and setting the channel +m. Votes 
> are then cast, since only members can speak in the channel.
> The voicing will also prove that voting nicks are identified.

IRC for voting is impractical for reasons you articulate.

> If we allow proxies, it gets more complex. We need to voice the proxies 
> and when we count votes, ensure that the member and proxy cast only a 
> single vote.
> Its further complicated by a world wide membership. The law says that 
> to be quorate and make decisions a members meeting needs >10% of the 
> members entitled to vote on an issue (at the first attempt anyway). A 
> short voting period on IRC would exclude the half our members who 
> would be in bed. In reality, we would struggle to make the 10%.  There 
> were less than 40 attendees for our first meeting, when interest in the 
> Foundation was at its height.
> I'm coming round to the opinion that any issues needing to be put to a 
> vote of members will be voted on in the normal Gentoo way over a period 
> of days, if not weeks. If that's so, we need some officers to run 
> votes.

I agree.  Then, as I think I suggested previously, the formal vote can
be the tellers' report.  This is really equivalent to having everyone
vote by proxy to the tellers, and the proxy vote is the normal Gentoo
vote.  Depending on how long it takes to extract a result from the raw
Gentoo votes, I suppose we could keep the voting period open for 5
minutes into the meeting or some such.  Note that members who are not
developers already vote "by proxy" --- send a signed ballot to a teller.

Another question about voting (and one for the bylaws) is how we extract
winners.  Currently, Gentoo overall uses an iterative Condorcet process
until the required number of winners is chosen.  Since Condorcet voting
chooses only one winner, you have to eliminate the winner from the slate
of candidates and run it again over and over until you have the correct
number of winners.  In "real life" (as in countries) people generally
don't do that; instead, they use a method which can choose the required
number of winners all at once.  The results can be different (e.g.,
different methods chose different Councils last year --- I know, I tried

{{{ I am not necessarily advocating change; what we do works well
enough.  I am mentioning possibilities.  And by the way, once you have
many candidates and possibly many winners, NO method is perfect ---
e.g., a rank-the-candidates procedure can give completely different
results from a choose-the-ones-you-want rule.  See Donald G Saari
generally (most recently, Notices of the AMS, v55 #4 (April, 2008) pp
448--455 & accompanying references. }}}

> I'm just trying to air my views in advance of the Sunday meeting in the 
> hope it will make the meeting slicker. 
> Thoughts and other options please. 
> - -- 
> Regards,
> Roy Bamford
> (NeddySeagoon) a member of
> gentoo-ops
> forum-mods
> treecleaners
> trustees
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
> iEYEARECAAYFAkgHk84ACgkQTE4/y7nJvaslpACeIPl+nPMN6PR17/+x8cTgJZK7
> BKUAoM50PAhkuK4SfPZawk71K1R9Styb
> =Uhcf
Adding to the complexity,
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part)
Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting.
-- Roy Bamford
Lists: gentoo-nfp: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting.
Next by thread:
Re: Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting.
Previous by date:
Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting.
Next by date:
Re: Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting.

Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-nfp mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.